|

How large is China’s economy really?

Which country has the larger economy. Based on 2019 GDP China’s economy is about 2/3 the size of the USA but when adjusted for PPP (purchasing power parity) is about 1/3 bigger. In other words the PPP adjustment doubles the size of China’s economy relative to the US. But is this correct?

Using the expenditure method the US GDP ($21,729bn in 2019) is made up of approximately 66% personal consumption (of which 20% goods and 46% services), 17% investment and 17% Government expenditure (of which 3% is investment and 14% current expenditure). (St Louis Fed)

Let’s look at some facts!

China consumes:

  • 30 times as much cement per annum as the US (World Cement)
  • 11 times as much steel (World Steel)
  • 8 times as much aluminium (World Aluminium)

China accounts for half of the world’s demand for flat glass, copper, nickel, tungsten, cobalt and rare earth metals and is also the largest consumer of zinc and tin.

All of the above indicate what is well known - that China has an enormous building boom with high rise buildings shooting up in cities all over the country where once stood mud huts. This is accompanied by massive infrastructure investments in road, rail, drainage, power generation and transmission, telecommunications etc. In addition China is also the workshop of the world with a manufacturing workforce eight times that of the US (Brookings; West & Lansang, July 2018) that is also competitive internationally based on costs and productivity.

Why then does the PPP figure not indicate an economy multiple times bigger than that of the US? There are several reasons:

(i) The PPP adjustment is made by taking a basket of goods and services in different countries and comparing their prices. These are then weighted to determine an average. However if the weighting in the basket changes then so will the answer. Most of the activity described above will not be picked up by the PPP method since that method is weighted towards consumption. Investment is weighted based on it’s share in the developed countries.

(ii) There are indications that China understates it’s building sector in it’s GDP by as much as a factor of four with several contradictory figures on the government’s own website. (data.stats.gov.cn)

(iii) A major share of the services component of GDP in the US is made up of health and education but how do you compare these with China. There is actual spending on these sectors and then there is the cost but given that China has four times the population who live almost as long and whose younger generations have comparable levels of educational attainment as in the US would it not be fair to say that spending adjusted for cost should show the Chinese sectors almost four times as large?

In order to get a meaningful comparison between the two economies it is necessary, in my view, to set out a number of underlying assumptions:

(a) Comparisons of services should be excluded on the grounds that in market economies services innovation will occur in any event and a cost/quality comparison leads nowhere.

(b) The PPP comparisons should apply to the consumption of durable and non-durable goods only.

(c) Construction investment should be calculated by taking the US as the base and by quantifying in square meters and square kilometres the volume of construction in any year. The corresponding volume for China (or any other country) would then be determined as a multiple or fraction of this volume. This multiple or fraction would then be applied to the US construction GDP instead of the PPP. In the case of China, given the known inputs of cement, steel etc, we would be talking about a factor of 13 times or more.

(d) We are assuming that in construction, manufacturing and R&D there are no productivity differences. In fact, in developing countries lower productivity tends to be a phenomenon in the agricultural and retail sectors but less so if at all in construction and manufacturing.

Regarding industrial capital and equipment China invests about three times as much as the US based on GDP at market value (Mondor Intelligence) but China’s industrial wages are only one quarter of US wages. Such investments absorb a proportionate share of China’s enormous metals consumption and therefore, in real terms, they are many times larger than the US - let’s say 10 times.

On the R&D side this can be adjusted on a PPP basis (assuming the underlying data are directly comparable) but for this article I have assumed that China’s figure is the same as the US figure.

Thus we have the following: 

Durables

Now it can be seen from the table that using this methodology China’s economy, ignoring services, is more than four times as large as the US economy.

Author

Paul Dixon

Paul Dixon

Latin Report

Paul Dixon’s focus is economics from a long term perspective.

More from Paul Dixon
Share:

Editor's Picks

EUR/USD hovers around nine-day EMA above 1.1800

EUR/USD remains in the positive territory after registering modest gains in the previous session, trading around 1.1820 during the Asian hours on Monday. The 14-day Relative Strength Index momentum indicator at 54 is edging higher, signaling improving momentum. RSI near mid-50s keeps momentum balanced. A sustained push above 60 would firm bullish control.

GBP/USD holds medium-term bullish bias above 1.3600

The GBP/USD pair trades on a softer note around 1.3605 during the early European session on Monday. Growing expectation of the Bank of England’s interest-rate cut weighs on the Pound Sterling against the Greenback. 

Gold sticks to gains above $5,000 as China's buying and Fed rate-cut bets drive demand

Gold surges past the $5,000 psychological mark during the Asian session on Monday in reaction to the weekend data, showing that the People's Bank of China extended its buying spree for a 15th month in January. Moreover, dovish US Federal Reserve expectations and concerns about the central bank's independence drag the US Dollar lower for the second straight day, providing an additional boost to the non-yielding yellow metal. 

Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple consolidate after massive sell-off

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple prices consolidated on Monday after correcting by nearly 9%, 8%, and 10% in the previous week, respectively. BTC is hovering around $70,000, while ETH and XRP are facing rejection at key levels.

Weekly column: Saturn-Neptune and the end of the Dollar’s 15-year bull cycle

Tariffs are not only inflationary for a nation but also risk undermining the trust and credibility that go hand in hand with the responsibility of being the leading nation in the free world and controlling the world’s reserve currency.

Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple consolidate after massive sell-off

Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple prices consolidated on Monday after correcting by nearly 9%, 8%, and 10% in the previous week, respectively. BTC is hovering around $70,000, while ETH and XRP are facing rejection at key levels. Traders should be cautious: despite recent stabilization, upside recovery for these top three cryptocurrencies is capped as the broader trend remains bearish.